Whether welcomed, feared, or ignored, revolutions have been rare but pivotal disjunctures in the history of the modern world. No history of the states system would be complete without accounting for the transformative impact of revolutions on the security, diplomatic, and economic configurations of the modern international system. Similarly, no political history of most contemporary states would be complete without a discussion of "revolutionary moments" which recast their governments, economies, and societies.
In an attempt to understand revolutions in an international context, this dissertation adopts the method of structured, focus comparison to analyze two cases of revolutionary upheaval -- Angola and Zimbabwe -- within the context of the bi-polar, antagonistic international system. While both Angola and Zimbabwe are located in southern Africa, had agriculturally-based economies dominated by large settler communities, became independent two decades later than most of Africa, gained independence through protracted guerrilla wars, and were not considered vital to either Soviet or American interests, nonetheless Angola experienced a revolutionary socio-economic transformation, but Zimbabwe did not.
To account for this variation, I look for differences in the international context of these two revolutions, specifically changes in foreign policies of the United States and the Soviet Union. I argue that Angola experienced a revolution because both Superpowers engaged in confrontational strategies of supporting and containing revolutionary movements. Zimbabwe did not experience a similar fate because the United States and its allies adopted a cooptive strategy toward the liberation movements, while the Soviet Union again adopted a confrontational strategy.
Drawing from these two cases, I conclude by assessing the influence of cooptive versus confrontational power regarding revolutionary situations in general, and the more universal properties of the dynamic between revolutions and the international system
